Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bond Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bond counsel outlines parameters for up to $21 million in possible district bonds; board hears timeline
Summary
Bond advisors updated the Conestoga Valley board on a possible parameters resolution authorizing up to $21 million in general-obligation bonds (the district expects about $15 million). Counsel described required filings under the Local Government Unit Debt Act and a planned June rate lock and July closing; no bond vote was recorded.
Bond counsel told the Conestoga Valley School District board May 19 that the district is preparing a parameters resolution under the Local Government Unit Debt Act to authorize general-obligation bonds to fund capital projects, including elementary-school renovations.
Mr. Kramer of Raymond James reviewed the financing timetable and said the district is aiming for a $15 million issue for projects already on its capital list. "We're gonna have our rating call. We don't expect any surprises there, so that we'd be in a position to lock in interest rates sometime in June and close on the bond issue and have funds in the bank in July," he said.
Erica Weibel, bond counsel with McNeese, Wallace & Nurick, told the board the parameters resolution authorizes bonds in a maximum aggregate principal amount of $21,000,000 and limits the maximum interest rate to 6 percent; she said the larger number is “just kind of a placeholder” to give pricing flexibility while expecting approximately $15,000,000 to be issued. "This resolution has been prepared in accordance with the Local Government Unit Debt Act," Weibel said.
Weibel said proceeds would be used for a range of capital projects and to finance issuance costs. She noted that after adoption of a parameters resolution, the district will file a debt statement with the state Department of Community and Economic Development to show compliance with borrowing capacity requirements.
The transcript records questions from board members seeking clarification on maturity schedule entries in 2052 and 2053; counsel explained the wrap-around structure and how it affects principal payments and statutory reporting. The transcript does not include a motion or vote adopting the parameters resolution during this meeting.
Next steps: bond counsel and staff will complete rating-agency outreach and return with a proposed resolution and documentation for the board to consider in a subsequent meeting.
